PR Firm Says Video Games Should Be Regulated... After Video Game Lobby Picks Different Vendor

from the don't-mess-with-hill-&-knowlton dept

It's a competitive business world out there and sometimes you don't get the clients that you want. But, should you take revenge on companies that opt not to use your services? Apparently that's what PR firm Hill & Knowlton did (though the firm denies it). The Entertainment Software Association (ESA), the lobbying group for the video game industry, went searching for a PR firm recently. H&K had competed for the business, and as a part of that, conducted a survey about video games to aid in its presentation. The ESA chose to go with a different firm... and H&K then released parts of the study that painted the video game industry in a negative light in what certainly looks like retribution. The firm put out a press release announcing "60% of respondents agree that the government should regulate the sale of video games," which is exactly the opposite message the ESA wants out there, of course. The actual study had some other conclusions that fit more with the ESA's message, but H&K chose to highlight the exact message that the ESA has been fighting against. In fact, the whole press release pushes the idea that the industry should be regulated, completely skipping over the other parts of the study.

Re #1 Fuse

Correct me if I am wrong (this goes to everybody) but aren't store clerks NOT supposed to sell M rated games to minors? The same way R rated movies aren't supposed to.
So, it already is regulated just as much as movies eh?
The problem is that the clerks don't check ID cards of any sort and sell it anyways.
Unless you go to GameStop (at least the ones around here). All of them card everybody I see go through the line except those that are Obviously parents and about 40+ yrs old.

Free market!

Re: games should be regulated

It's not the industry's fault that the people selling games are 17 years old, make a dollar over minimum wage and see no problem selling M games to kids slightly younger than themselves.

The games have warnings on them. Clear, easy to understand warnings. How much clearer could Mature and Adults Only be? Just because the ratings don't come from a group of secretive puritans doesn't mean they're worthless.

Pfff. The only people who shouldn't be getting violent video games are young kids, and in that case it's the parents job. Which is a fairly easy job, i.e., "Don't purchase that game for your child" or if you buy the game yourself, "keep it away from them".

That the simplicity of this system seems to go completely ignored is terrifying to me.

Re: Re: games should be regulated

It's not the industry's fault that the people selling games are 17 years old, make a dollar over minimum wage and see no problem selling M games to kids slightly younger than themselves.

I was under the impression that it was mostly up to stores to enforce the sale of the game. So if a store sells an M game to a child, they couldn't be fined for doing so (not like selling a rate R movie to a minor).

Re: Re #1 Fuse

Just purely FYI

The ESRB is not a government body. The second the government starts even rating games it becomes a first amendment issue. The ESRB is an organisation crated by game developers for the benefit of the parents. It is the store's choice to sell or not sell M or AO rated games to individuals under 18 years of age. Most stores have a policy that they will not and an employee will be fired if they do. Movies are rated the same way by an organisation that is not controlled by the government.

Shopping for the "right" results

I don't think that the government should regulate video games. The ESRB is doing fine job. But I don't think it's right that an organization goes around to different PR firms until they get the "right" survey results. What does it do to the credibility of all other reports if you hear about a case where someone just shopped around until they got the answer they wanted?

I don't know anything about this PR firm, but another way to spin this story would be that they did the public a service by exposing a flaw in a system that allows for results shopping.

Re: Value of info from those PR firms

I bought GTA when I was 10. 10 year olds ARE allowed to buy those games if they know what store to go to.

And I think everyone is right, it's the parents deal to watch their kids. Parents are so lazy know adays I think they have issues remembering their children's names. Take for instance the new most popular toy, a bear that reads books to children. and teaches them to read. You don't have to do anything with your kids anymore. Then they get all pissed when something goes wrong.

They are regulated

Hey video games ARE regulated. You know the little black box in the corner that has either T for Teen or M for Mature or whatever else they use for other age groups the game is regulated for? How else could the regulate a game other than by age of who they think it's appropriate for? Sure, no stores or ill informed parents listen to those ratings, much like most dont listen to the R rating in movies when it comes to kids. So what's the big deal?

Strikes Again!

Its a fairly typical tactic from these guys. My Dad worked for them for years but suddenly found himself jobless when he was within months of retirement. Eventually, this stuff will earn them the business they deserve.

Re: They are regulated

You know the little black box in the corner that has either T for Teen or M for Mature or whatever else they use for other age groups the game is regulated for?

Yes, I am quite aware of those boxes. However, that is an voluntary industry agreement, that no needs to obey. It is not a law. It is not a regulation. It's simply a voluntary system that there is no penalty for if not followed.

Sure, no stores or ill informed parents listen to those ratings, much like most dont listen to the R rating in movies when it comes to kids. So what's the big deal?

The "big deal" is that it's a violation of free speech to regulate who can buy the games. Every time a local gov't has passed a law, it's been thrown out as unconstitutional.

Re: Shopping for the "right" results

But I don't think it's right that an organization goes around to different PR firms until they get the "right" survey results.

Granted that would be intellectually dishonest (although many companies in many different sectors do that), but that's not what happened here: the ESA was looking for a PR firm, and obviously the smart thing to do is contact and listen to several to see which one is (or at least seems) most promising/capable. The ESA didn't ask the PR companies to do a survey, H&K did that on their own, it was their decision as they hoped it would help them land the account. They didn't get the account because the ESA liked another firm better, it had nothing to do with the survey, after all, it's not like just because H&K did the survey, that the survey would have to be used in any campaign or in any way, shape or for, if the ESA had decided to go with H&K

Even without reading the original article and just reading Mike's summary, how is this not clear???